December 23, 2013

"I think it's come to a point in our culture where political correctness has made it so if you want to take a point of view that is traditional, that holds to a steadfast, old-fashioned biblical, Christian values - which are also, by the way, values of traditional Judaism and even Islam - and somehow you're just supposed to shut up and keep that to yourself."

Huckabee pointed to a "new level of bullying on the part of these militant activist groups,” as reason for Robertson's suspension by A&E, referring to groups like the Human Rights Campaign, which urged the network to suspend the star.

But Huckabee conceded that Robertson's comments would have been "more appropriate for the duck woods than it would be for the pages of a major news magazine."

So Huckabee is part of moving the culture to the very point that he's observing that it's come to. There really are things you don't say in mixed company, and it's long been part of the culture to refrain from voicing religious views that make other people uncomfortable. In Christianity, there are many many sins, and it's not socially acceptable to talk about all of them openly and indiscriminately.

If you don't believe me, here's an experiment you can do over the next 3 days. Whenever you find yourself in a conversation with a fat person, inform them that gluttony is a sin. Here are some Biblical verses you can incorporate into your experience:

Proverbs 23:20-21 warns us, “Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags.” Proverbs 28:7 declares, “He who keeps the law is a discerning son, but a companion of gluttons disgraces his father.” Proverbs 23:2 proclaims, “Put a knife to your throat if you are given to gluttony.”

Let me know how that works out for you. But you won't do it, because you know it's not acceptable.

What people are having trouble with is the somewhat sudden change, with hostility to homosexuality moving into the category of something not appropriate to spout to a general audience.

And that doesn't mean Phil Robertson shouldn't have said what he said. He was being interviewed and pressed on a topic and he answered honestly. He has a reality show that is entertaining because it's somewhat daring and different, and people can choose whether they'd like to drop in on this particular cast of colorful characters. The culture of the show is a different, smaller circle than the whole American culture. And the network, A&E, is another culture. It includes some entertainment premised on colorful indiscretions that go only as far as fits a corporate brand.

We're in the process of figuring out what you can say where, what has no consequences, what counts as funny or daring and offensive to some but not enough to have a negative effect a speaker or a network, and what everyone ought to know by now is going to hurt you.

Well, one issue is that you don't know if the rotund fellow is really a glutton. And anorexia is a form of gluttony as well, since gluttony is treating food as a false God. It's just that a fat glutton sees food as a delightful god to be entertained, while an anorexic sees it as a dark god to be avoided, and they've both lost touch with the actual use for food. They're both using a gift from God in a way contrary to what he intended it for.

The same goes for sex. Homosexuality itself is not a sin, it's the acts themselves. Because the Christian position is that God also gave us sex as a gift with a purpose. So sex outside the confines of marriage between a man and a woman (and also, from a Catholic perspective, sex that deliberately seeks to avoid fertility), is using a gift in an inappropriate way.

Imagine your mom gave you a Rodin sculpture for Christmas. An actual original. One that is incredibly valuable. And then, imagine that instead of treating it as a piece of artwork, you used it as a hammer.

Would that be an appropriate use for the gift? Would your mother be happy with how you treated that gift? Would using a Rodin as a hammer make you happy in the long run? It's not particularly goof for pounding nails, and the sculpture itself would get damaged in the process.

For Christians, food, sex, the environment, our neighbors, EVERYTHING in the created world is a gift from God. And it's important to use these gifts in the ways which God intended us to use them.

So, you ask, why do we talk to non-Christians about these things? Because we also believe that EVERYONE is a child of God, and we want them to be happy. And part of being happy is respecting the gifts you were given and using them for their proper purpose. Otherwise, you end up with a hideously disfigured Rodin.

A lot of Robertson's comments were well done and could be applauded by believers and nonbelievers alike. He din't single out homosexuality, but rather included it among all sexual sins. Nonbelievers should be fine with that, knowing that Christians see non monogamous heterosexual acts in the same light as homosexual acts. Equality!

On the other hand, I read Andrew Sullivan's take and I do think he had a point. Robertson emphasized by answering the sin question with homosexuality as the primary or root sin, wit other sins "morphing out" from there. That does imply some particular evil, and since there is a history of harsh treatment of gays, a Christian would do well to consider that in his phrasing of such a response.

You've been gloating now for several days, Althouse, that the institution for which you work has successfully indoctrinated several generations of kids in the lie that opposition to gay marriage is something called "homophobia."

Gays caused the AIDS epidemic with the precisely the "stereotypical" behavior you want us to forget.

Yes, you've successfully indoctrinated the kids in a lie and attempted to banish reality from polite conversation.

I ain't polite, Althouse. You're a liar. You're gloating over your success as a liar.

It's important to understand not just that Robertson was being interviewed by GQ, but that A&E had arranged the interview and had a representative of the network at the interview. Under those circumstances, it's a lot harder for me to view Robertson as having violated some social norm against blurting out something that might make someone uncomfortable.

Instead, it seems someone at A&E set Robertson up. Had A&E wanted to, it could have established ground rules for the interview that would have prevented this situation. I'm assuming they didn't for a reason.

You are presenting a false comparison. Robertson did not "find himself in a conversation with a [gay] person." He was being interviewed by a journalist and being asked about his religious beliefs. You are comparing his behavior with someone deliberately seeking out "sinners" and trying to convert them. His comments are far more similar to your pedantic discussion of gluttony as a sin in this blog post than your imagined Westboro Baptist style attack.

"He was being interviewed and pressed on a topic and he answered honestly."

So why shouldn't he have said it then? This part of situation has been bothering me for a few days. It was and still is being presented as if Mr. Robertson went on a diatribe about gays. Now, everyone who knows anything about Duck Dynasty knowswhere these folks are coming from, religious-wise. Might the motives of the interviewer come into play at all?

"I think this is an attempt to improve the image of A&E a little before the Duck Dynasty Marathon, particularly for coasties. But I don't consider this politically correct or a good business decision...this is a lie." said Joe Blow, one of two members of Anus Riot, who lost a gig playing A&E's company Christmas party after staging a protest against Phil Robertson in A&E's main headquarters building. The band has been informed that their gig is back on.

Where in that process do we address the ethics of deliberately smothering what someone says? By preventing access to a forum, by shouting her down, by punishing the speaker by firing or derogation, by savage peer pressure dolled up as holier-than-thou 'moral suasion'?

I observe that Facebook liberals among my arts community friends refuse all restraints when savaging opposing viewpoints and those that hold them.

So basically, anyone---20, 10, or 2 percent of viewers--- who is in disagreement or somehow feels "shamed" is part of that "general" audience, so it must dictate what is appropriate? (singular as in percent)

I don't think all that many Christians are tempted to be homosexuals. There is, however, a temptation to be unfairly hostile to gays which a good Christian would guard against........I don't object to gay marriage. That does seem a sane and honorable way of dealing with your libido. By the same token, I would object to anyone who preaches that having anal sex with several dozen strangers a year is some type of liberating act........Maybe the proper analogy isn't to gluttony but to smoking. Smoking is an unhealthy habit and people aren't reticent about informing smokers of their moral torpor......In a better world, straights would be more accepting of homosexuality, and gays would be more critical of promiscuity.

"In Christianity, there are many many sins, and it's not socially acceptable to talk about all of them openly and indiscriminately."

It may not be socially acceptable, but a Christian is not supposed to be concerned with what is socially acceptable.

Mathew 5:11

Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.

1 John 3:13

Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.

Acts 7:54-60

Acts 19:24-41

And of course that whole thing about Jesus being condemned and crucified found in Mathew, Luke, Mark, and John.

But you are correct, many Churches do refuse to deal with sins such as gluttony.

But your hypothetical fails because if I am talking to someone about Christ, I am not going to talk about their sins. Its not up to me to condemn them. I am going to share what Christ has done for me and what He can do for them.

If they ask me about a particular sin, I will point to what the Bible has to say about it, while emphasizing that God loves everyone.

Which is what Phil Robertson did. He was asked about God and a particular sin. That is a chance to evangelize.

So, which is it? One shouldn't mention the subject of sin if it makes another uncomfortable? Or one should honestly answer such questions when pressed to do so in order to inject some red meat into an interview? Even if doing the latter results in your figurative defenestration from what is jokingly called polite society?

I don't see Ann gloating over anything here, though I do see her observing that the culture is grappling with how (and whether) to approve of discussion of sin.

@Ann,

Is the pattern you notice a reversal of the patterns of social discourse from the 1800s? (As in, don't talk about sexual things in public, but talk about religion all you wish...so now, public discourse is full of talk about sexual things, but religion is shamed?)

I notice that the arena of the sexual is the place where religious teaching is currently furthest from the cultural mainstream.

In past centuries, that point of disagreement has wandered...I can think of economic/legal structures related to slavery, and a culture that seemed soaked in alcohol and related misbehavior.

Robertson is a dangerous man. The polite folks are stymied by his rude and crude words, but cannot stop him from speaking truth and winning the culture war.

From the August breakout of Normandy through September 1944 no one could stop the Third Army and the Fourth Armored which were racing across France at 30 miles a day straight into Germany.

So in Patton's case he was only stoppable by the stupid jealousy of Montgomery and Bradley who had Ike take away Third Army's supplies to launch their own diversion attack into Holland which was a total failure. But they wanted to stop Patton from winning the war so they could take the glory.

Trashhauler said...So, which is it? One shouldn't mention the subject of sin if it makes another uncomfortable? Or one should honestly answer such questions when pressed to do so in order to inject some red meat into an interview? Even if doing the latter results in your figurative defenestration from what is jokingly called polite society?

Well there's the rub now. I gather that Professor Althouse is drawing this distinction of venues and contexts, in a good faith attempt to draw distinctions of the right and wrong way to discuss religious ideas.

But she (as far as I can tell) stops short of acknowledging that opponents of religious speech are actively setting up no win situations. Frame the dialogue so that a Christian has to answer in a way that's been deemed offensive, and then censure him for it.

Whenever you find yourself in a conversation with a fat person, inform them that gluttony is a sin.

Fat person: "Do you think gluttony is a sin?"

Christian: "Yes."

Media: "Shock! Outrage! Destroy his business! Put his head on a stick!"

This media circus is obscene. It's absurd. It's ridiculous. It's exactly like Rush Limbaugh and "slut." For weeks they talked about that. Weeks and weeks. It's so childish and stupid. This whole kerfuffle is a joke. The only thing even remotely newsworthy about it is how our media seems to think its job is to silence people. That is worthy of comment.

Other than mocking the media for their glib stupidity, there is no story here.

The Village People Were Not Afraid to Say What They Think. They Told the Hidden Truth about the YMCA when the World Was Not Ready to Hear It. When in Doubt, Don Your Rhetorical Leatherman Outfit and Say What You Mean, and Stand By What You Say.

What is strikingly wrong about GLAADs response to what Phil P. said is that they are conducting the same sort of social shunning and demands for coerced compliance with their own morality that was used against gay people by society before being "out" was OK.

Contrast this story with gay basketball player, Jason Collins. Both stories are quite similar, in that they are non-stories. Not news at all. It's like gay p.r. more than news.

How did people respond to the Jason Collins non-story? They did not respond. There was no story there. It was a manufactured non-story, a puff piece, suitable for People, maybe.

Why was it treated as hard news? For like a week?

It's an obvious attempt to indoctrinate, to instill thoughts in people. Gay=normal. That's the ideology. So if you see journalism as the spreading of an ideology, then by all means spend a week talking about Jason Collins. Let's pretend like he's Jackie Robinson. Nothing shameful or ridiculous or absurd about all this moral posturing at all!

We do not actually live in a homophobic society. We live in a highly tolerant society.

And yet, it's not enough for some people that we live in a highly tolerant society. They want to know what you think, and then they want to fix your thoughts so you don't think that way anymore.

Find a Christian, ask him what he thinks, then try to destroy his business so that everybody knows you're not allowed to think this way. That's what this is about. It's stupid and evil and there's nothing tolerant, or liberal, about it.

Now we godless are determined to denounce religion wherever it raises its ugly head.

Thus showing that you are just as horrid and intolerant as the religious people you target. You don't have any Christians "on the run" BTW, despite your Walter Middy Cultural Revolution fantasies to the contrary.

People like you aren't "liberals", you are just Fundamentalists for your own side.

Gay men killed themselves by the tens of thousands with the very "stereotypical" behavior we must now endorse, while at the same time pretending that the epidemic never happened.

Of course, Althouse is continuing to pretend that gay men died by the tens of thousands as a result of mythical persecution at the hands of straight men.

I was there, Althouse. You're a liar. I won't wipe my memory clean and pretend otherwise, and I've effectively defeated the women in my life who would stomp their heels on my neck and attempt to force me to pretend that I don't remember.

What an outrageous lie you've embraced, prof!

Yeah, career bureaucrats have little choice but to eat your shit and swallow the lie.

Weight is genetic, look up the FTO gene discovery. Sexual orientation is either genetic or developmental. The fact that either would be considered a sin is backwards and ignorant. What next? Condemning the "sin" of being born with some other chromosomal, genetic issue? Will it be seen as retribution for the sins of the father?

What I've been reading on these Robertson threads the last few days is nothing less than group hysteria, something I've seen in the pews of the Pentescostal church I grew up in. I guess some WOULD attribute it to the Holy Spirit, come to think of it.

Which, literally, confirmed all those "stereotypical" notions about gay men.

I mean, I saw the bodies. I endured the epidemic during my years in SF and NYC.

So, what Althouse is doing here is crowing over her propaganda triumph in pinning the blame for the AIDS epidemic on straight men. Nailing her for what she's doing is, of course, "bigotry," something polite people don't do in public.

ST says:I was there, Althouse. You're a liar. I won't wipe my memory clean and pretend otherwise, and I've effectively defeated the women in my life who would stomp their heels on my neck and attempt to force me to pretend that I don't remember.

Who would've thought that a reality show character would bring about a Christian reawakening? Or are conservatives desperate for a messianic leader? Can't wait for Jesus, huh? Too bad about that false profit thingie in the Bible.

CStanley, what would drive a human to gluttony? Unusual levels of hunger because of high levels of the hormone Ghrelin and abnormally low levels of Leptin? Sometimes it's just lazy thinking that confuses sin with science, especially in our modern day world.

Weight is genetic, look up the FTO gene discovery. Sexual orientation is either genetic or developmental. The fact that either would be considered a sin is backwards and ignorant. What next? Condemning the "sin" of being born with some other chromosomal, genetic issue? Will it be seen as retribution for the sins of the father?

Orientation is not a sin. It is the actions taken that is considered sin.

You are also wrong about weight being genetic. Genetics don't matter. You can gain weight and lose weight entirely through dietary choices and no physical activity at all.

Sorry, not supported by the empirical evidence and facts that when fatties stop overeating and start even modest exercising, they lose the fatness. People make choices when it comes to diet and exercise.

I myself put on weight when I began eating too much and not exercising. I corrected it. I know far too many fatties that lost the weight when they were *forced* to in order to keep their careers. It turned out they loved their careers enough to what was needed to stay in. It wasn't "genetic" unless laziness and lack of motivation to improve ones life is genetic.

Fat peoples weakness is food and their lack of will power when it comes to eating and exercise, not their genetics. that's the simple, observed truth.

Using "genetics" to try and absolve them of their lack of will power and personal discipline to thus portray them as "victims of a cruel, fat shaming society" is silly identity politics bullshit. It ignores and seeks to discredit and mischaracterize the settled science of diet and exercise as some sort of cultural bigotry by telling big fat lies about why more people are fat.

Inga said... Who would've thought that a reality show character would bring about a Christian reawakening? Or are conservatives desperate for a messianic leader? Can't wait for Jesus, huh? Too bad about that false profit thingie in the Bible.

I think A & E thought they had the Beverly Hillbillies, but they turned out to be charismatic, traditional, religious Americans who struck a cord with many other Americans. Not a reawakening, but rather, delight at having their views on the TV. Refreshing.

I Have Had Hopes of Enticing Althouse into a 'Can't Stop the Music' Post, to No Avail. However, I Think it Has Ramifications in Context with the 'Duck Dynasty' Events.

'Can't Stop the Music' Played a Pivotal Role in Mainstreaming Gay Culture. Campy, Yes, But it Was Amongst the First Overt Exposures of Such in a Positive Light. Contrast the Handling of Gay Culture with Another Film of the Same Year: Al Pacino's 'Cruising'. From imdb on 'Cruising': "A police detective goes undercover in the sleazy and underground gay subculture of New York City to catch a serial killer who is murdering numerous gay men with S&M tactics."

'Can't Stop the Music' Bombed at the Box Office: Was an Aversion to Positive Homosexuality Part of this Poor Reception? Or Did America Prefer to Believe 'Cruising's depiction? Of Course, 'Cruising' Was a Flop, Also: Perhaps the Answer is America Didn't Want Either.

Thirty-Three Years Later America is Spread Across the Tightrope Between These Two Movies, Between Celebrated and Sinful, As Seen in the 'Duck Dynasty' Situation.

That Would've Been a Great Post. Althouse Could've Inserted the 'Can't Stop the Music' and 'Cruising' Trailers to provide Visual Context to the Subject.

" it's long been part of the culture to refrain from voicing religious views that make other people uncomfortable"

Perhaps that is what needs to change in the culture?

It was also a part of the culture to refrain from asking people about their religious beliefs.

Now it appears that the norm is that people be interrogated about their religious beliefs and if they don't conform with the beliefs held by the cultural gate keepers then they are to be denounced and driven from the public square.

Do you know that Phil Robertson could have been jailed for what he said under "hate crime" laws if had said it in England?

"The fact that either would be considered a sin is backwards and ignorant"

That's what the Romans thought too. Whether it's ignorant or enlightened is the disagreement.

Indeed, at the core of Christian understanding of sin is that it is both an act and a part of our being. Original sin, as Augustine proposed it, even has a essentially genetic origin. We all have sins we're genetically or developmentally oriented towards.

That's the very basis for a Christian expression of salvation. Because it's so deeply part of us, we have no ability to fix ourselves or work it out on our own.

When was it socially acceptable to go on an unprovoked tirade against the sins of the person one was conversing with? Was this before I was born? I have no memory of this ever being an accepted practice.

And that being the case, what is the point of the gluttony experiment outlined here? How is this germane?

Saint Croix: Jason Collins was a story more about the fact that he has a twin that is heterosexual and he is a homosexual. This was not reported widely enough and is the most interesting aspect to a debate about all the choices humans control and what society had to do to accept or cowtail to these choices.

Inga, our actions are influenced to varying degrees by our hormones but we aren't a slave to them. Is it OK to cheat on one's spouse if one has a high testosterone level and is easily aroused?

I am by no means a stranger to the ideas you are espousing, as I struggle with a family issue related to a person with mental health issues and how much or little he can be held accountable for his actions. It is a painful issue. I turn it over in prayer to the grace of God. I don't, however, throw up my hands and attribute behaviors that can harm himself and others as inevitable due to his genetics.

Shouting Thomas is correct, of course, in pointing to the University as the source of much wrong thinking and fascist rule-making regarding a host of topics that fall into the PC category. What is of interest to me is that the holding of these ideas has become a substitute for real education and thus many stupid people deem themselves smart by embracing these university-generated positions and many people who are not college "educated" adopt them to appear as though they were.

But Huckabee conceded that Robertson's comments would have been "more appropriate for the duck woods than it would be for the pages of a major news magazine."

Is there no end to the ignorance of these redneck twits? Don't they even know their own culture? Ducks are waterfowl; you shoot them over water, not in the woods. Guess Huckabee got Donald confused with Bambi.

CStanley, nothing wrong with prayer. But tell me, would it be wrong of someone if they were to condem another persons actions as sinful, if that person acted in a certain way because of genetics? How would you feel if your family member with the mental health issues' actions were considered sinful as opposed to being a symptom of something he cannot control because he was born with it?

Inga:"CStanley, what would drive a human to gluttony? Unusual levels of hunger because of high levels of the hormone Ghrelin and abnormally low levels of Leptin? Sometimes it's just lazy thinking that confuses sin with science, especially in our modern day world"

15% of Americans were obese in 1960. 35% of Americans were obese in 2010.

CStanley, what would drive a human to gluttony? Unusual levels of hunger because of high levels of the hormone Ghrelin and abnormally low levels of Leptin? Sometimes it's just lazy thinking that confuses sin with science, especially in our modern day world.

"If you don't believe me, here's an experiment you can do over the next 3 days. Whenever you find yourself in a conversation with a fat person, inform them that gluttony is a sin. ... Let me know how that works out for you."

I chuckled at this even as I recognized its truth.

This is a good analogy for making the OPPOSITE point. You posit a face to face and personal interaction with a negative outcome. But fat shaming takes place from the secular pulpit all the time with consequence no worse than mockery. For example, Mayor Big Gulp was not removed from office and Michelle Childhood Obesity still has her "job."

Robertson's comments were as far removed from the personal as are Bloomberg's or Obama's.

Inga, I deal with that every day. Like I said, it's painful. It's not always, or usually, framed as "sin", but as the judgements of everyone around us for inappropriate behavior. None of that changes the fact that he is better off with consequences for his actions then without.

Don't expect me to tell pretty lies about it, just to make somebody feel better and not face the truth.

Palladian couldn't handle the truth that unfettered gay male promiscuity during the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s directly led to the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s. The dire predictions of an incipient widespread heterosexual AIDS Pandemic never panned out as claimed simply because of the lack of widespread promiscuity amongst mainstream Hetero culture that mirrors that of gay culture.

The pockets of widespread hetero AIDS is confined to IV drug users and promiscuous Hetero populations associated with prostitution and in the porn industry.

And Inga, spare me the "you're being judgemental" civility bullshit.

The entire Phil flap showcases the desire of people like you to be able to endlessly pass judgment on whoever you deem unfit for polite society and drive them from the public sphere, all the while demanding everyone else NOT be able to judge YOUR pet "victims" in return.

As far as "sin" goes. well I am not a Christian, so those rules don't apply to me. Sorry to pop your Alinsky attempt.

If you fuck too many people, you might get AIDS and die. If you eat too much, you might get fat and die. Those are proven facts. Sorry that you don't care for science when it comes to epidemiology and diet & exercise.

When the left gives up passing judgment on people they don't like and then forming a mob to shut them up, let me know and I might be amenable to moderating my language. Until then, no thanks.

Garage:"Seems like the most virulently anti-gay people just can't stop talking about cocks and anuses. Time to stop blaming the Bible for that, yo."

GM. I could not agree more. Understand, of course, that the very point of the aggressive homosexual movement is to remind you constantly of where they put their penises. This should be a matter of extreme indifference to everyone. Always.

including dozens who were my friends and associates, would be alive today if they had stayed in the closet.

What?

I presume you allude to your friends who have died from HIV/AIDS/complications. The only conclusion you can draw from their having stayed in the closet (if you are suggesting closeted men don't get AIDS, well...) is that you wouldn't have had to know about their sex lives.

"the new biggest American entitlement is the entitlement to go through life without being offended. People think they have a right not to have their feelings hurt, not to have their sensibilities in any way exacerbated." - George Will

And while we are on the topic of people passing judgment on people they don't like (to borrow a phrase from everyone's favorite Sergeant) and how that relates to the Dynasts of Duck, here's another Robertson quote on gays, from 2010: “They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil. That’s what you have 235 years, roughly, after your forefathers founded the country.”

"Cruz, Palin, duck man and Huckabee etc, the adolescent wing of the GOP. We want freedom without responsibility - to say and do anything we want. Who cares who it hurts - that's their problem..."

Who, exactly, is being hurt?

How does the fact that Phil Robertson acknowledges that the Christian bible identifies homosexual acts as sinful and believes that the Bible is divinely inspired by the creator of the universe harm you?

Does the fact that he also identifies adultery as sinful harm you as well?

Could it be that Althouse's psychosocial-babble contortions are irrelevant since it simply may be that the vast majority of Americans have simply had enough of the lazy, pseudomoral bullying of fashionable elites?

Madison Man; I was riffing a bit on the Shouting Thomas post and your reply. I am suggesting that the death of many gay men was the direct result of the "lifestyle" that was "celebrated" in the early days of the homosexual revolution which was the opposite of the discreet and quiet behavior of the in-the-closet gays of the time. I lived in San Francisco during those years and was a friend of many gays in both camps. Those men who were in the closet were not there because they were afraid of repercussions because San Francisco was both mindful of and respectful of their preferences. they were there because they did not feel it necessary to let the world know of their private lives. They were conservative men. They lived. So many of my more radical friends did not make it. Their profligate and extravagant sexual appetites killed them.

Ralph: "How does the fact that Phil Robertson acknowledges that the Christian bible identifies homosexual acts as sinful and believes that the Bible is divinely inspired by the creator of the universe harm you?"

It doesn't harm them, it simply represents a barrier to the left in breaking down any/all traditional societal norms in the lefts never ending quest to create the "New Soviet Man".

Inga/garage/somefeller etc are nothing more than the types of folks who love to be a part of a Mao-like cultural revolution here or, at the least, STASI-like "helpers" for "the movement".

Ron's new idea for rehearsal space is the YMCA (the ensuing production number "YMCA" features its athletic denizens in various states of undress—the film is one of the few PG-rated offerings to feature full-frontal male nudity).

Inga/garage/somefeller etc are nothing more than the types of folks who love to be a part of a Mao-like cultural revolution here or, at the least, STASI-like "helpers" for "the movement".

Well, if we want to make assumptions about personality types, Drago likes to think of himself as a brave online defender of freedom and tradition in the face of a totalitarian enemy. It provides a certain sense of adventure and meaning for an otherwise humdrum and bleak existence. He's basically Walter Mitty with a black-hatted avatar. But don't get him angry. You wouldn't like him when he's angry.

Actually I think the Robertsons are more grifters than bible thumping rednecks. They don't mind all that Duck Dynasty crap made by godless communists that they're making millions from after all.

Yeah, the transformation of the Robertsons from preppies to camo-clad rustics has been shown on various websites. But this is making them a fortune and I look forward to seeing Phil give a speech (maybe the keynote?) at the 2016 GOP National Convention.

Prof. Althouse wrote, "What people are having trouble with is the somewhat sudden change, with hostility to homosexuality moving into the category of something not appropriate to spout to a general audience."

I think what A and E and self proclaimed cultural elites in general are finding out is that it is entirely appropriate and mainstream to admit the sinfulness of homosexual sex--most (that is, the general audience) agree with Robertson.

The cultural elite wish that wasn't true, pretend that it isn't, and throw tantrum when they hear such verboten thought.

Certainly, most in a general audience try to be polite. GLAAD could care less about civility--hence, the current silliness.

Duck dynasty sells--the general audience likes them, and they like Robertson, and they agree with his take on sin. A and E will cave or take a financial beating. Our cultural elites can whine and bully all they want. That's fine, but the general audience has won this fight. That's why the gay police must take the fight to the unelected judges.

Seems like the most virulently anti-gay people just can't stop talking about cocks and anuses. Time to stop blaming the Bible for that, yo.

Homosexuality is a sexuality. People respond to it in a sexual way. That can be enthusiasm (if you're gay) or hostility (if you're not). And of course there are varying degrees of this reaction.

Liberalism seeks to normalize homosexuality. And one way it does that is by repressing sexuality and not talking about it or thinking about it. Which is fine if we are talking about hiring an accountant, for instance. Who cares if he's gay? None of our business.

But it's quite stupid to think sexuality is irrelevant to homosexuality, and that we can just ignore sex and pretend like it's not an issue.

It's just weird how liberals re-define marriage without thinking about breeding, or children, or mothers, or fathers. They take human sexuality out of equation, as if sexuality has no part of the discussion.

As far as Phelps, no he doesn't since Phelps (a member of the Democrat party) proclaims that, "God hates fags" while Robertson states, "‘Folks let’s try to love one another no matter what the color of their skin."

and

"We're Bible-thumpers who just happened to end up on television. ... You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off."

sunsong: the shutdown!!! You mean the closing of government because the president refused to delay the individual mandate? I believe the Democrat congress shut down the government because they were too arrogant and stupid to see that their folly was about to be unveiled.

Uh-oh. Drago's getting angry. I warned everyone. He's been in the barrel and isn't stopping now that he's, um, out of the barrel!

Anyway, while I don't usually take requests, I'm happy to denounce Islamist radicals. Just as President Obama has by word and deed. (You can look up both, but the latter involved the fate of a chap named Osama.) I denounce ignorant bigots of all sorts. I'm most concerned with those who reside in my home country, however. Though to be fair, the Taliban and the Religious Right obviously aren't equivalent, despite some similarities in rhetoric and in the case of the Duck Dynasts, facial hair. Nuance and all that.

If they were engaging in behavior that harmed themselves or others I would speak up about it, even if they did not want to hear about it. That is what you do when you love someone.

That your belief, ok. Would you think at all about "how" you were going to speak to them - about how it would be received? Would you think at all about how you would choose your words, about your impact on them?

It was a non-issue before TV interviews and Twitter came along. People didn't discuss religion and politics at work. They kept to themselves and discussed the weather or other safe topics. That's the way it SHOULD be. No controversy, no getting people's feelings hurt.

Sunsong, perhaps you can tell us in what way the message of sinfulness of homosexuality can be conveyed so that it would be well received.

And not only well received by a particular individual who might be well known by a particular Christian, and inclined to hearing them without assuming malice...but also well received by gay activists. If you really believe that there is a version of this belief that will be acceptable to the pro-gay lobby, do enlighten us.

@Alex- i was just saying that about Facebook. First I thought it was kind of neat to get to know people with whom I'd previously only had superficial relationships, until I realized there was a reason for the superficiality.

"That your belief, ok. Would you think at all about "how" you were going to speak to them - about how it would be received? Would you think at all about how you would choose your words, about your impact on them?"

What was it that Robertson said that you think is so hurtful?

He stated his belief that homosexual acts are sinful, along with promiscuity and a couple of other things?

Is it because he compared promiscuity with bestiality?

He did not denigrate gays, he did not call them hurtful names.

What you are stating is that basic Christian beliefs are so hurtful that they may not be uttered because someone might take offense.

I would find it impossible to say to really fat person's face that they should watch how they were eating and exercise more and I know because this situation has occurred twice. The first time I liked the person and simply couldn't add to her burdens. The second time I did not like the rotten little liberal fascist and I used to place selected magazines opened to relevant stories and ad offers strategically where they would be seen. That was sin by me for sure.I think the left initiates these discussions about sin to make the right look stupid because discussing the sins of named others in a public forum is not Christian. A Christian should start with herself and (usually) stop there.But the culture is collapsing into a death spiral. How should a Christian talk? Should a Christian hide his views when asked for them by news media? knowing that an answer will be categorized as a hate-filled rant by liberals in a hate-filled rant by said liberals (many examples above). My opinion of many current liberals and especially Democrats (but not the owner of this blog) is that they need of think of some group as retrograde and outcast from evolution. Once it was African-Americans and now it is Christians. The answer to the question: "What do you as Catholic think of gays, women fat people?" might be: "Face the game you are playing which is: 'I'm more evolved than you.' Why do you as a liberal have to think of someone as less evolved than yourself? Why have you liberals always needed that? To the point that you can't fix what's gone wrong with Obamacare because you can't admit that your evolved selves made such a mess?"

We're all part of the twisted timber of humanity, and we all create our own outhouses. In high school, I witnessed an effeminate kid being railed on unmercifully. That was wrong, and I hope things have now changed.........Shouting Thomas is right. Promiscuity was and, perhaps, still is an integral part of the gay lifestyle. Promiscuity has killed more gays than homophobia. No gay ever gets criticized within the liberal community for promiscuity.......We're most prone to criticize sins that were not tempted by. We're not sexually attracted to children, and so we fervently criticize child abusers (except in the cases of really talented movie directors and leftist revolutionaries). But the most common form of child abuse is divorce. If you have a young child and get divorced, you have introduced an element of toxicity into that child's life that he will never fully recover from. And yet divorcees are not treated with the same contempt as other child abusers........I note in passing that the extended Robertson clan has stable marriages and happy children. Their values have allowed them to build a brick shithouse..

I read statements like this a lot but they make no sense. Simple statistics tell us that the vast majority of liberals are heterosexuals. Liberals do not seek to normalize homosexuality for the obvious reason that they are generally not homosexuals themselves.

Unlike illiberals, liberals feel no need to proselytize against homosexuals. The absence of animus does not imply the presence of some other quality, other than indifference, also known as tolerance.

William, so women should remain in an abusive marriage rather than risk divorce? What if the father ot the children is abusing the children or herself? How healthy is it for children to be victims of a parental abuse or witnesses to abuse of their parent!? You seem to be able to see inside the Robertson children's marriages in REAL life, I hope you are not too dissapointed when and if one of them gets divorced.

Althouse, for the record, I was involved with 2 conversations over the weekend with fine Christian women, pillar of the church types who feed the hungry and buy Christmas gifts for children in need. They both brought up gluttony with themselves as examples. Hate the sin love the sinner.

Myself, I'm fine and always have been with gay marriage but have come to despise the bullying gay activists.

Ralph, how would Islamic rhetoric espousing some issue, perhaps Sharia Law for instance, be received by the majority of Americans? I think it's a good possibility that we would hear a huge outcry against such religious dogma. Why is it wrong for those who are not Christians to publicly denounce Christian dogma they think is discriminatory?

Robertson has a right to espouse his Christian values, the network has a right to fire him in response. Perhaps they don't agree with his statement and see it as discrimination they don't want to be associated with. Perhaps they are NOT Christians! You have the right to not watch their programming.

"Robertson has a right to espouse his Christian values, the network has a right to fire him in response. Perhaps they don't agree with his statement and see it as discrimination they don't want to be associated with. Perhaps they are NOT Christians! You have the right to not watch their programming."

Then we agree, great. I never watched the program anyway. I'm just not that into reality TV and I always suspected that the beards were a put-on.

I know people from rural Louisiana, not many of them have beards like that. For one thing, it gets HOT in Louisiana. And HUMID.

My issue is the mindless denunciations of Robertson as a homophobic h8er for espousing Christian beliefs held by large numbers of people in an attempt to intimidate Christians into being silent.

Phil's family meets Modern Family in LA for friendly contests. Then Modern Family goes on a duck hunting contest in Louisiana swamps. Then they both go to Alaska to Moose Hunt and catch commercial fish against the Palin Family that are not pregnant at the time.

"First, I note that you didn't answer my question. Why not? Would you give some thought when speaking to someone you really love when telling them you believe their actions are going to harm them?"

Because it goes without saying. You haven't answered my question. What did Robertson say that was so hurtful? He did not denigrate them or use slurs. He quoted scripture and said he considered homosexual acts to be sinful. Is that to hurtful to be endured?

Don't care what Huckabee thinks. He wants to be President. That alone tells you there is something wrong with him.

"Are your supporting this quote against gays from Robertson in 2010?:

“They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God-haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are truthless. They invent ways of doing evil.”

Also addressed earlier in the thread. A quote from Romans taken out of context. The people he is talking about aren't like that because they are gay, they are like that because they reject God.

Also, apparently A&E did since he made it in 2010, but the first season of Duck Dynasty started airing in 2012.

I think that if you live a world where divorce is frowned upon, less people would get divorced for transient reasons. I think that if you lived in a world where promiscuity was frowned on, less gays would die of AIDS.....Morality sometimes serves a useful purpose, other than annoying liberals........Criticism of gay behavior rarely extends to lesbians. Wave high the flannel shirts. Is it possible that many people object not to homosexuality but to belligerent behavior?

"Ralph, morality doesn't necessarily need to be tied to belief in God. There are many atheists and agnostics that are moral human beings, surprise! Of course I realize the dogmatic will disagree."

That's not the topic here. I know you think that the Bible is a bunch of superstitious twaddle. I believe you are incorrect.

The topic is the attempt to silence Christians (and eventually Tibetan Buddhists, Islamics, Orthodox Jews, Sikhs, etc) from expressing traditional religious beliefs by placing those beliefs beyond the pale using inimidation.

Here in NJ, where a Judge recently decided that homosexuals must be allowed to marry, a statute was introduced to codify that "right." However, the draft statute had a provision making it clear that clergy did not have to perform gay marriages.

The bill had to be pulled. It was not enough for the gay/liberal lobbies that gays be allowed to be married. No, they also must be able to force Catholic priests, and others with religious or other objections, to do their bidding.

That's the problem. It's the Duck Dynasty problem. It's the left problem. It's the liberal problem. They don't want to "have a conversation" or have everyone be tolerant of others, they want to tell you what to do and they want you to STFU about it. This is not solely, but it is mostly, a feature of the left.

Do you agree that Robertson gave no thought to "how* he said what he said - to how it would be received - to his impact, or at least he doesn't seem to care?

12/23/13, 12:49 PM

I don't agree with that at all, actually. All evidence says that he has a carefully cultivated public image, which may or may not match his basic personality off camera. I think he chooses his words for good reason.

It's certainly not the words I would choose, but I find no reason to describe the comments as hateful and I think you put too little onus on listeners/readers to interpret without assuming malicious intent.

I did, on one of these threads, note that I agree with Andrew Sullivan on this though: personally I agree that there's been enough history of maltreatment of gay people that some extra care should be taken not to single out homosexuality as some kind of root of all evil. So that's the extent to which I'd criticize Robertson for not taking more care. Other than that, I think he was being more provocative and vulgar than I would, but in doing so he made good points.

That's the problem. It's the Duck Dynasty problem. It's left problem. It's the liberal problem. They don't want to "have a conversation" or have everyone be tolerant of others, they want to tell you what to do and they want you to STFU about it. This is not solely, but it is mostly, a feature of the left.

Yes, in the secular religion of leftism, the primary commandment is "thou shalt not judge." So the pretense that they want to live and let live gets horribly contorted because they can't let people keep their moral codes if they aren't based on the same moral relativism through which they themselves view the world. It's a conundrum that is leading them toward cultural fascism.

Let's assume for a moment that Phil Robertson wanted to avoid sparking a cultural controversy... a big assumption! What did he do wrong?

Two things:

First, he used crude words in his GQ interview. "Vagina" and "anus" and direct talk about genital mechanics. Far too crude for polite conversation. His focus on body parts is like pornography for cultural conservatives. If your religion prevents you from getting your jollies from direct sexual gratification, your base human desires will find another outlet of expression.

Second, he used "homosexual behavior" and "bestiality" in the same sentence. This echos the old conservative political argument that if gays are tolerated, and especially if gay marriage is allowed, people everywhere will be heading to the barn for their sexual trysts. Big faux pas.

Still, the assumption in all of this is untenable. Robertson's comments were completely in character. You could easily make the case that the whole Duck Dynasty phenomena is one big cultural provocation -- a show that resonates with a large cultural minority that is, nonetheless, still a minority. It can be considered to be a voyeuristic display of conservative-oriented pornography. The self-aggrandizement -- a necessary ingredient in pornography -- is certainly there, baked in the reality TV show format. But because it's baked in, the Robertsons can aggrandize while plausibly denying that they are. "Hey! What's your problem? This is just how we are!"

This thread has arguments, back and forth, between commenters accusing each other of hypocrisy because (1) they decry judgmentalism and yet (2) they espouse it or at least fail to decry others who have it.